Month: July 2016

As I mentioned in my debate with an atheist; truth is not an imperative in an atheistic universe since in such a case survival is all that matters and you can survive by ascertaining empirical truths or by being utterly deluded—it matters not.
On the other hand, in YHVH’s universe truth is not only an imperative and ascertainable but truth is a person: the Messiah Jesus.

“What is truth?”

We should all be well aware that truth is and that it is absolute. One way to prove that truth is and that it is absolute is to simply note that anyone who disagrees believes that their negating position is absolutely true. Note that “absolute” means that something is what it is regardless of our opinion: we may like it or not, agree or not, prefer it be different or not, be aware of it or not and yet, it is what it is regardless. As, perhaps, a side note; be certain to not confuse “absolute” with “arbitrary.”

In an atheist universe, a God-free universe, truth is not an imperative. This is not to say that there is no truth in such a universe but that our knowledge of it is not necessarily relevant. In other words, we may survive by ascertaining empirical truths or by being utterly deluded; as survival is all that matters in such a universe. We may still need to learn facts so as to build safe buildings but overall and particularly regarding worldviews—it matters not.

Ask an atheist what “religion” is, what “God” is, what “faith” is, etc. and they will likely state that those where concepts to which humanity held as an evolutionary advantage which helped us survive. The fact that they now see themselves as more evolvedier than thou is another issue. See:
Memetic Mesmerism and Eumemics
The Desperation of the Deicidal, Memetic Eugenics and the Evolutionary Watchmen, part 1 and part 2

It counter-distinction to this making an irrelevance of truth we find that according to the Judeo-Christian worldview truth is an imperative:

Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”

And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all (John 18:33-38).

Little did Pilate know that Jesus had stated, “I am the truth” (John 14:6) and “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).

I went to a bookstore recently and noticed a kid’s book by Ricky Gervais. My mind went in two directions 1) he is very talented and very funny so I could see him writing for children and 2) he is, after all, an atheist and somewhat of the activist sort so I suspected that I should be suspect.

Ricky Gervais is the co-creator of the original British tv show “The Office.” He is a co-producer in the US version. One can only guess; but it seems quite possible to me (as I laid out here and here) that his atheism perhaps influenced by Sam Harris’ anti-Christian atheist media campaign plays a part in The Office.

In The Office the Christian character, Angela, is not only the only one whose worldview/theology is identified but who has always been characterized as a total snob and who has, finally, been made into the most despicable character of them all. This was done to the point that the other characters—who live according to the motto of fornicate with many and often—find her despicable.

The kid’s books is a pop-up book titled “Flanimals” about which Ricky Gervais wrote, ““Even though they’ve sold millions, won awards and are currently being made into a Hollywood blockbuster, I’ve always thought that Flanimals lacked a certain poppy-upness. That is not a problem anymore.”
Sure enough, I opened the book and behold: a mockery of Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” (about which I wrote here) along with text that sung the praises of mutation/evolution and besmirched as “Mental!” the view that all of the Flanimals were created by a sky being known as “Grob.”

So, Christians: get ready for the next round of being put down for not wanting your children to be taught by atheist how to mock you. Atheists: get ready for next round of readymade aids for you to raise your children to be atheists and learn, from a tender age, to mock those with whom they are taught to disagree.

Flanimatheism is coming your way.

There are some religious groups that claim that in order to truly have a relationship with God we must know and refer to Him by His true and proper name. One problem is that these groups cannot seem to agree on what God’s name is. Ha-Shem is Hebrew for The Name it has come to be one way in which Jews refer to God. The actual pronunciation is unknown due to the fact that the ancient Hebrew Bible manuscripts have no vowels. Thus, what we find when we look into the text in order to find God’s name is the Hebrew letters yod, hay, vav, hay, which is equivalent to Y, H, W, H, or J, H, V, H, according to translation-pronunciation. Thus, with the addition of certain vowels we end up with the commonly used YaHWeH or JeHoVaH.

Another issue is that the same groups who claim that we must use God’s proper name (which ever one they choose to popularize) do not seem to be concerned about using Jesus’ proper name. This is quite surprising considering that the Bible states:

“let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10-12).

It would seem equally as important to know the proper name of Jesus. But what was His name? Again we can only guess as to whether it was Yeshua, Yehoshua (equivalent to Josh or Joshua) and or the more formal Yeshua ha Nazrete, Yehoshua ha Nazrete or Yeshua ben Yosef, Yehoshua ben Yosef (ha Nazrete meaning the Nazarene and ben Yosef meaning son of Joseph). In the above cited text Jesus Christ of Nazareth would translate to Yehoshua ha Meshiah ha Nazrete or Yeshua ha Meshiah ha Nazrete.

It is important to note that names mean something even if we do not realize it or think that our names do not mean anything, it would be a matter of research to find out what our modern day names mean. The point is that names have meanings and it is the meaning that gives purpose to the name. In the case of God we know that His name tells us something about His attributes.

The God of the Bible is known as: The Almighty, Jehovah, YHWH, Yahweh, Adonai, Ha-Shem, Shaddai, El, Eloah, Eloheinu, Elohim, LORD, Yod Hay Vav Hay, Emet, I AM, etc., etc. Having a personal relationship with God is not based upon proper pronunciation but is based rather, on the acceptance of the grace which He freely offers us through Jesus the Messiah.

We will now consider a biblical statement about humanity’s natural knowledge of God and our purposeful negation of such knowledge.
And lastly, we will consider to what atheism has come as they seek to find meaning in a meaningless universe and seek to prop up their favored ideas upon contradictions of their own making.

Neo Pagan Atheism
Gleaning from Romans 1:18-28 we see that the Bible makes the following declaration:

…men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness… For they changed the truth of God into a lie…

they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

Let us parse this statement:

men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
I firstly, wanted to note that “the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them” may be understood, at least on one level, is that we humans are not animals; even those who believe that we are animals admit the obvious—that we are very, very different from the animals, or from other animals. Thus, humans have always discerned the imago dei—that humans as being made in the image of God. More directly, God revealed “the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world” as they are “realized by the things that are made.” We often recognize invisible things by their affects. For example, wind is invisible but we see its affect as trees sway, oxygen is invisible but we see its affect as it burns.

I recall a debate engaged upon by Philip Johnson who stated that the evidence for design is all around us. At this point the audience, predictably, laughed at him at which point he quoted Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick who have written:

Dawkins, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1).

Crick, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (What Mad Pursuit, p.138).

The evidence is clear to behold but they replace the logical conclusion of design by concocting stories about how thing may have, could have (or, should have?) happened in the form of Victorian Era tall tales. As long as they can tell naturalistic stories about time, chance and matter coming together in unknown and unobserved ways to look like design they are, as Dawkins puts it, “intellectually satisfied atheist[s].” Furthermore, consider what happens when they are confronted by the scientific evidence of a universe fine tuned for life: they imagine unknown and unobserved oscillations and a multiverse in order to deny the evidence set before them—if they can imagine it, that is good enough.

This is why they are said to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” and thus, “be without excuse”—they know better but talk themselves out of conclusions which are inconvenient to their particular, and peculiar, worldviews.

Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful.
Knowing that God is behind creation they ignored Him and, as is typical of humanity, did not thank God but take pride in themselves as they think that they have pulled themselves up by their very own boot-straps. The problem with the self made person is that they worship their creator.

But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Acceptance of the recognition of divine design lead to imagining scenarios whereby the universe just pops into existence uncaused by nothing and for nothing, life coming from non-life—all without evidence—etc. “Scientific” literature has become saturated with tall tales which, no matter how nonsensical or absurd, are concocted, accepted and promulgated due to adherence to atheism in the guise of Darwinism or the insistence that “science” is not allowed to come to anything but materialistic conclusions. Think about it: science only deals with the material, only considers the material, only observes the material and, big surprise, only concludes the material. It is a set up whereby one stares into one little corner of reality, the material aspect, then one sees only the material, then one comes to material conclusions and then one demands that the material is all that there is—yet, this is because the refuse to turn around from that little corner and behold the splendor of creations various facets.

Note the statement of Prof. Richard Lewontin (whose whole statement is very worth reading):

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
The self profession of being wiser than thou is basically a requirement of atheism. It is, in fact, one of their consoling delusions. The atheist is the most erudite amongst us and has based their atheism upon the very best information to date on every topic upon which issues of atheism vs. theism touch (at least this is the talking point which is not the whole story). This is why, for example, they come to the brilliant conclusions that:

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing.
It is rational and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is eternal.
It is rational and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.

God is an effect and must have had a cause.
Matter is the uncaused first cause.

If God made everything, then who made God?
Matter made everything and nothing made matter.

Makes one wonder.

As for “imaginations”; note the words of Prof. Richard Dawkins as he is asked to provide his “most persuasive” argument for his particular Darwinian/Dawkinsian views:

Um, there’s got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can’t think of one then that’s your problem, not natural selection’s problem. Natural selection, um, well, I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my, on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.[1]

Thus, “their foolish heart was darkened” as they openly display their vain imaginations which are readily discerned as mere excuses for rejecting God.

Changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” is surely a reference to literal idolatry. Yet, such a change is just as prevalent in atheism not via the literal carving and worshiping of images of man, animals and insects but via neo-Pagan-atheism as atheists push the concept of replacing awe in God with awe in nature (I evidence this via quotations here also see here).

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness…For they changed the truth of God into a lie…they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind While the texts gets into particular action which followed from the choice to reject God and God allowing them to do so, or respecting their freewill choice, let us focus on the fact that they proceeded to “changed the truth of God into a lie” and “did not think fit to have God in their knowledge” which is why “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”

This is the mind from which they continue to justify their rejection of God. The more that one wants to reject God the more justification they will find for it as they reach ever closer to what they really want: to be rid of God forever. Succinctly stated; this is, at least part of, the reason that God does not part the universe, appear in the sky and say, “Shalom! I am God and you are not” as this would, essentially, rob us of the freewill to seek and find or reject and feel justified in doing so.

[1] The Atheism Tapes, Part 4: Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller

‹ The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 1 up The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 3 ›

We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, considering Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.’s article titled, “Lingering Idolatry in the Temple of God,” AskELM (as in Ask Ernest L. Martin about whom I previously wrote Nightmare on AskElm Street – angelic “Sons of God”?), September 1, 2000 AD which contains some interesting point, some thought provoking speculations and some very serious errors.

Martin rightly notes that as per 2 Kings 18, Moses’s God ordained image of a snake was destroyed due to idolatry. Yet, he then merely asserts that “the Israelites also began to worship those two cherubim” and actually specifies that “Even in the wilderness the Israelites had commenced their worship and adoration of those two Cherubim” and he repeats, yet again, “Do these words not smack of a clear violation of the Second Command (of the highly prestigious ‘Ten Commandments’)?” No they do not. But let us see why he claims to be able to be so very specific.

He reiterates “(even while they were still in the wilderness) began to worship those statues and images” and asserts that it was this detailed fact that “infuriated Jeremiah at a later time as well as Ezekiel.” He also claims that “Jeremiah decided to get rid of the Ark of the Covenant and the worship of it by the Israelites.” He claims that Jeremiah “with the confirmation of Ezekiel took the Ark of the Covenant with its idolatrous depiction of Cherubim out of the Holy of Holies and (according to the Book of Second Maccabees)” an apocryphal text which Martin refers to as a “historical work” and it may actually contain accurate history or may not. He quotes the text from verses 1-7, adding bracketed statements along the way and adding a comments in between:

“One finds in the records that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those who were being deported to take some of the fire [from the altar of the Temple], as has been told, and that the prophet after giving them the law instructed those who were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, nor to be led astray in their thoughts upon seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment.”

There were images and idols in the Temple and some God had commanded to be there. [Continuing on:]

“And with other similar words he [Jeremiah] exhorted them that the law should not depart from their hearts. It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark [of the covenant with the two cherubs] should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark [with the two cherubs] and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: ‘The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated.’

It was also made clear that being possessed of wisdom Solomon offered sacrifice for the dedication and completion of the temple. Just as Moses prayed to the Lord, and fire came down from heaven and devoured the sacrifices, so also Solomon prayed, and the fire came down and consumed the whole burnt offerings.”

Ernest Martin’s commentary is “So exasperated was Jeremiah about the penchant of the Israelites…to turn physical things that God ordained even in the Temple into idolatrous artifacts that Jeremiah prophesied that in the future NO TEMPLE OF GOD would ever have an Ark of the Covenant again” and he claims that the specific motivation was that “That is the main reason that Jeremiah took” the items “to hide them so that they would not be found to be placed in any Temple after the Babylonian Captivity was over.”

However, this is reading his misunderstandings into the text as it specifies no such thing. What the text does specify is that an unknown document claims that “Jeremiah ordered the deportees to take the fire” which was mentioned in chap 1. Thus, the motivation for hiding the items is that they were deportees: so that those who were conquering them would not steal the items. Nothing is stated about idolatry but only that they should not think to keep it in view as they would be “tempted by the sight of gold and silver statues or the finery adorning them”: the worth and beauty of the items, not idolatry of them. Some sought to find it but are told that it is up to God when to, again, reveal the items. This would mean that God, again, wants people to fall into idolatry which, actually, is exactly what Ernest Martin believes, as we shall see.

Yet, for what it is worth, 2 Maccabees knows of no such thing but simply states that the items will reemerge when “God gathers his people together again and shows them his mercy.” It is even specified that “it was revealed in the time of Moses and when Solomon prayed that the holy place might be gloriously hallowed” and not defiled by idolatrous images.

Comedienne Julia Sweeney’s play “Letting Go of God,” must be something to behold. Professor Richard Dawkins refers to her and her play seven times in his book The God Delusion. The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Dan Barker has likewise cited her as may be seen in this post.

Dan Barker quotes Ms. Sweeney to the effect of,

“When God told Abraham to kill his son, shouldn’t the proper response have been, ‘No. I will not kill my son.’?”

Certainly, our rightful gut reaction is something to the like of “Right on!” or “Of course.” Yet, there is something more to consider here besides the inner workings of our guts.Certainly, a comedienne, whose purpose is to make jokes and poke fun may not necessarily be blamed for spreading fallacious assertions yet, the issue here is that Dan Barker approvingly repeats it. And why not? Well, I’m glad you asked.Dan Barker has gotten a lot of mileage off of being an “ex-preacher.” This affords him some level of authority when speaking on biblical, religious, Christian, issues. “Well!” saith the skeptic, “He used to be a preacher and now he is an atheist, he must really know something, he can tell me all of the Bible’s dirty laundry and I can just take his word for it,” or some such thing.In the post referred to above, Dan Barker rightly urges, “Look up the bible verses I quoted.” I have done just that and have found that his understanding of the Bible leaves much to be desired. I am not here referring to esoteric minutia but am addressing even the most basic level of understanding. I am referring to some things that are as basic as making assertions based on one, two or a fraction of a verse when merely reading one or two verses either before or after quite clearly reveals that he was pulling a text out of context in order to make a pretext for a proof text.I believe that this claim of mine is clearly demonstrated in at least two of my essays,

Why Freethought?

And,

Dan Barker’s Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications

It appears that Dan Barker uncritical regurgitated Ms. Sweeney’s statement. This is not to say that someone has to have any knowledge of the Bible per se, perhaps merely a tiny bit of historical or comparative religion type of knowledge.Let us actually begin by noting the term “proper” in Ms. Sweeney’s statement. How does she, an atheist, determine what is “proper”? Perhaps a bit more pointed: just who is she to determine what is “proper”? Or perhaps more specifically, and this will be key, how does she, and who is she to, determine what was “proper”?When reading any text whatsoever, particularly an ancient text, it is important to keep certain things in mind such as: grammatical context, historical context, cultural context, et al. Dan Barker fails to consider that in the time and place where Abraham lived when a god told you to kill your son, the proper response was, “Yes, of course I will kill my son.”It appears that this was one of the things that the God of the Bible wanted to make crystal clear: even though the other gods, the false gods, did demand and accept child, human, sacrifice He did not and would not.

Dan Barker argues for relative morality to the point of stating that rape is not absolutely immoral (see my essay Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs). How then can he, or Ms. Sweeney, condemn the morality, or lack thereof, of the ancients? Perhaps they consider themselves far too erudite and enlightened when compared to those people way back them. However, they must empathize with the time, place, beliefs and culture of what they are considering. One things that Jews and Christians (and by extension, Muslims) have never done for God is child, human, sacrifice and the episode with Abraham and Isaac was the premise upon which this was never done is premised.

These simple facts and the fact that Dan Barker ignores them, or perhaps is ignorant of them, and chooses to side with a comedienne further discredit’s his criticism of the Bible. As is so often evidence: when certain people critique of the Bible they only ends up discrediting themselves.If you are interested in a more detailed handling of this issue see my section entitled “Child Sacrifice: Sanctioned and “the right thing to do”?” in the above mentioned essay on Dan Barker’s scriptural misinterpretations and misapplications.

I also dealt with Richard Dawkins’ mishandling on this text in my essay, Planting God More Firmly on His Throne.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard Dawkins denies any alleged ties between himself and the atheist re-education camp “Camp Quest.”

Richard Dawkins replies to claims he is “grooming” kids to become unbelievers.1

Camp Quest is still hard at work projecting a politically correct public relations facade that seeks to hide its anti-theistic pro-atheistic premise.

Camp Quest organizer Samantha Stein stated,

Most of the kids who come here are atheist anyway so it’s very difficult to indoctrinate someone into becoming something they already are.

It may be difficult to indoctrinate atheist children into atheism but it is not difficult to reinforce atheism in children whose parents have raised them as atheists.

Oh, I see, wait a minute-this is actually a point against Richard Dawkins having anything to do with Camp Quest. We will see why it is a point in just a moment; let us first consider his denial as Jasper Hamill reports it,

One article in The Sunday Times, that began with a version of the famous Jesuit line (“give Richard Dawkins a child for a week’s summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life”), irked Dawkins so much that when I asked him about the article, he furiously replied:

“Contrary to The Sunday Times – it is, after all, a Murdoch paper – Camp Quest has no connection with me, except that my foundation made a charitable donation to it of, I believe, £495. I know nothing of the camp itself and don’t even know where it is. That Sunday Times article was an outrage, saying that I was ‘grooming’ your atheists, and quoting that disgusting Jesuit boast.”

While Dawkins clearly plays no part in Camp Quest – and we would dare not invoke his wrath by implying so – religious critics on the opposite end of the scale still see the event as part of a war to brainwash kids into thinking there’s no God, no purpose to life and that the Earth’s construction took an awful lot longer than seven days’ worth of divine labour. For some, Dawkins is a kind of Trotsky figure, always scheming and plotting to bring down religion. Evangelical Christian groups would certainly rather there were no atheist camps. Justin Thacker, head of theology at pressure group Evangelical Alliance, insists Dawkins’s fingerprints are all over Camp Quest.”I think it’s quite amusing,” he says. “Perhaps Dawkins realises that his propaganda doesn’t work with the adults, so now he’s going to try it with the children, which, in a strange way, is as if he’s taking his atheism and acting more and more like a religion. I don’t think he’ll find he’s any more successful there”…

Camp Quest organizer Samantha Stein stated “Most of the kids_are atheist.” Yet, surely, Richard Dawkins would be furious at her for imposing such a label upon a mere child.

He has stated,

It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue.2

A phrase like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should clang furious bells of protest in the mind _ Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Mus­lim child? Shudder.3

Surely, he would proclaim that it is evil to describe a child as an atheist-flinch, squirm and shudder.

It would appear that his financial support and good words about Camp Quest have inexorably tied him to Camp Quest and this tied that bound appears to be in appearance only.

Yet, what an appearance it is:

At Camp Quest the little children are made to sing John Lennon’s atheist anthem “Imagine” to which Dawkins made reference in “The God Delusion.”

Is “Dawkins is a kind of Trotsky figure, always scheming and plotting to bring down religion”?
Certainly, and it does not help his woe is me faa&#a7;ade that with regards to raising children according to one’s faith he wonders whether there is occasion for “society stepping in”4 and he ultimately hopes that this interference “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”5

Camp Quest has also exacerbated the Camp Dawkins Quest perception by offering a prize of “a £10 note with a picture of Charles Darwin on it and signed by Dawkins” for any child who can prove that invisible unicorns do not exist. In the US the prize is a $100 bill from before the government put “In God We Trust” on US currency (but Camp Quest is not anti-theistic-No! No! No!).

Does Richard Dawkins realize “that his propaganda doesn’t work with the adults, so now he’s going to try it with the children.”It certainly seems that way as his “Out Campaign” is aimed at the college crowd and he has also lectured to children and told them things such as,

We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA_It is every living object’s sole reason for living’_fulfilling a purpose of propagating DNA_There is no purpose other than that.

That is right kids-now be good for goodness sake!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more observations of Camp Quest’s underbelly see:

Atheist Re-Education Camp for Children

Atheism Camp – Camp Quest Freethought Camp of Childhood Indoctrination

Camp Quest – Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ivy League institutes of higher learning were established by Christians with theological foundations: Yale, Harvard, Brown, Cornell, et al. Later on liberals and atheists of all sorts, not being able or willing, to establish anything original, latched onto them in leech like manner and turned them into universities to diversities: that is, from institutions of higher learning which sought to bring together all disciplines into a coherent worldview into institutions that replaces wisdom with chaotically scattered information.

What does Richard Dawkins seek to establish? An indoctrination / re-education camp for his favorite audience: children.

You may be aware that his book The God Delusion was supposed to contain such power that no one would be able to resist ending up an atheist by the time they read thorough it. Then, when it was in the process of being picked apart for what it is—poor logic, poor history, poor theology, poor science, poor in general—he downgraded it to a book that would appeal to the fence sitters. Finally, he ended up stating that it was supposed to be a funny book and an amusing book (with this I can actually agree as he obviously did not put much musing into it).

Richard Dawkins was recently taken aback—which he does when he feels like wearing the prim and proper British gentleman facade—in stating, “What have you read of mine that makes you think I have a skewed agenda?” Well, his agenda is certainly twisted but it is out there and as clear as day. He has already condemned parents who raise their children according to their religious beliefs as “child abusers,” etc. He has wondered if there would be occasion for society to step in and has admitted that his goal in interfering is, of course, that children would end up as atheists. Recently, he continued his Pied Piper children’s crusade:

…the story has come forth that he wants to start an atheist school….it is in any case revealing of his reasoning…

He was asked by one commenter:

“What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?”

His response was:

“That’s a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children’s rights.”

It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do. He alluded several times in the threat to the sufferings of atheist parents forced to send their children to faith schools…

“Is it better to stand by one’s principles or be hypocritical in order to provide the best option? What a horrible dilemma to be forced into.”

But apparently this doesn’t apply if your principles are religious ones, because then your children have a right to be educated as atheists.

Of course, the Dawkins position here is purely a matter of assertion. It’s impossible to imagine anything that might qualify as evidence for the view that it is okay for atheists to discriminate against parents who have particular religious beliefs, while it is very wrong for believers to do so.

But “evidence”, tends to be defined backwards in these polemics – in other words, he starts from the axiom that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, (implied here in his remark that “Every atheist I know would change their mind in a heartbeat if any evidence appeared in favour of religious belief”) and then find meanings for the term that fit this use. This is of course the same trick as defining faith as belief without evidence and then using this definition as proof that faith is irrational.

If that sounds unfair, consider the uses of “evidence” in his discussion of education here:

“Children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded. If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.”

It’s clear here that Dawkins is starting from the definition that “evidence” is what can’t justify a belief in God, whereas “tradition, authority, revelation, and faith” have all been used to justify religious belief, so they must be bad.

But the idea that you can separate a respect for evidence from a respect for tradition and authority doesn’t survive a moment’s reflection on the ways that children actually learn. That’s true whether or not God exists.

To be sceptical, critical, and open-minded are all mental, and even moral disciplines. Obviously, all education in any schools, should try to produce such children. But these skills don’t come naturally. Indeed, Dawkins, in other moods, will emphasise the utter lack of these skills in small children. So how are they learned? If you want to teach children to be sceptical, critical, and open-minded, you have to start from authority and induct them into a tradition where these things are valued.

The construction of reasoned arguments is a skill that many people never master at all. If they ever do, it is on the basis of social and moral skills, involving self-discipline and a respect for others, which can only be taught with authority. When you are bringing up children “Because I say so” precedes every other sort of “because”, and it must. We learn to yield to the authority of reason by our experience of earlier yielding to other sorts of authority.

Obviously, not any tradition, nor any old authority will do for this purpose. Most cultures, for most of history, have put very little value on originality and non-conformity. Teenagers, above all, are hideously concerned about whether they fit in and it takes skilled and strong-minded teachers to relieve even some of this anxiety. But they can’t do it without the support of an authoritative tradition that values non-conformity.1

The more that Richard Dawkins is challenged, the more he cowers from debate, the more interested he becomes in children—whom he has been indoctrinating / re-educating for a long, long time—so that he can train them as to how to agree with him from the cradle. He fails so very badly in the arena of ideas that he must get to children before their ideas develop.

And if the atheist response is to pull a tu quoque (essentially stating, “You do it too!”) then they are, again and as usual, mincing theists. Thus, they are copying those who are supposed to be oh, so ignorant. They are engaging in cognitive dissonance, contradiction, illogicality and hypocrisy. And they will be loud and proud to do so, by the way.

I have a plethora of evidence as to atheist’s attempts to dictate child rearing, theirs and yours: see my section on Atheist Child Rearing